Define "objective". The dictionary describes this use as:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
So exactly how are these photographs "objective"? Have they been shown to be factual or without interpretation? We know the photographs exist but do they actually show what you proclaim they show? Is it possible these photographs can be hoaxed? There are factors in the Trindade and McMinnville that suggest a hoax. Until you can show they are not hoaxed, we have to consider it as a possibility. They are "open to interpretation". This means it is not "objective evidence" but "subjective evidence".
To take a photo, you point the camera at the subject and activate the shutter mechanism, allowing photons reflected from the subject to contact a photo-recording medium that then preserves a photo-representation of the subject in such a way that we can observe the resultant image at a later date. Do you contend that process is influenced by personal feelings? Do you contend that process to not be “factual”?
There is NO observation (and you of all people should know this) that is NOT “open to interpretation”…. ALL evidence is “subjective”…
It is not possible for the Trindade and McMinnville photos to have been hoaxed. If there are “factors in the Trindade and McMinnville that suggest a hoax”, then you will be able to point out precisely where and how this is true.
From Condon on McMinnville:
”This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses. It cannot be said that the evidence positively rules out a fabrication, although there are some physical factors such as the accuracy of certain photometric measures of the original negatives which argue against a fabrication.”
(
http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)
From Dr Bruce Maccabee (who conducted an extensive, detailed analysis of the photos) on McMinnville:
”I have further concluded, contrary to the opinions expressed in Reference 2, that it cannot be proven from either verbal or photographic evidence that the case was a hoax. Instead, the available verbal and photographic evidence indicates that the sighting was not a hoax.”
(
http://www.nicap.org/cufospaper2.htm)
It is interesting to compare Dr Maccabee’s analysis with that of Robert Sheaffer (Reference 2 in Maccabee above) who concluded that:
”There exists no factual basis for rejecting the following hypothesis: at approximately 8:20 in the morning of May 11, 1950, a small asymmetrical model was suspended from overhead telephone wires by two very thin threads. It was photographed once, then reoriented either by hand or by its assumption of a pendulum-type motion, and photographed again.”
(
http://www.debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html)
It is interesting to note also there is no argument that the object was actually in the photo (ie; it was a real object in the environment) – just whether it was close (hoax model suspended from the overhead wires) or further away (UFO).
Even after all of the above technical analysis there are two factors that stand out starkly against the hoax theory.
The first telling factor is that the UFO
decreases substantially in size from photo 1 to photo 2 (confirming the eyewitness descriptions that it was moving away from them).
Given that the second photo is about 6% larger than the 1st (measured from the background hills) then the decrease in UFO size can be conservatively estimated to be about 10%.
The second factor is that the UFO is patently “disappearing” into the obvious haziness of the low cloud ceiling (that there is a hazy low cloud ceiling is also obvious to anyone who has experienced such weather conditions).
Incidently, the photos can be viewed here:
Photo 1. (
http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo 2. (
http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)
On the Trindade photos:
”The pictures and negatives were analyzed by both the Navy Photo Reconnaissance Laboratory and the Cruzeiro do Sul Aerophotogrammetric Service, both agreeing the pictures were authentic. The latter's written conclusion stated: "It was established that no photographic tricks are involved. The negatives are normal.”
(
http://www.nicap.org/articles/baraunaUFOE.htm)
”In 1978 an Arizona-based group, Ground Saucer Watch (GSW), which specialized in analysis of purported UFO photographs (and which had rejected most as phony), subjected good-quality prints to a computer-processing technique, focusing on edge enhancement, color-contouring, picture-cell distortion, and digitizing. GSW’s specialists came to these conclusions:
The UFO image is over 50 feet in diameter. The UFO image in each case reveals a vast distance from the photographer/camera. The photographs show no signs of hoax (i.e., a hand-thrown or suspended model). The UFO image is reflecting light and passed all computer tests for an image with substance. The image represents no known type of aircraft or experimental balloon. Digital densitometry reveals a metallic reflection. We are of the unanimous opinion that the Brazilian photos are authentic and represent an extraordinary flying object of unknown origin [Hewes, 1979].”
(
http://www.nicap.org/trindade/cufos_pages/Trindade_Clark_article.htm)
Of course the debunkers have their say also. For example Martin Powell:
”In 1959 Harvard astronomer Donald Menzel thought the object in the photos was simply an aircraft seen through fog, though he later revised his opinion, claiming they were probably images of a model flying saucer which Barauna had super-imposed on plain photos of the island. ”
(
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mjpowell/Trindade/Trindade.htm
But from Clark we have:
”On November 27, 1959, Donald H. Menzel, a Harvard University astronomer and UFO debunker, wrote Richard Hall of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena to report his "tentative conclusion" concerning the object in the Trindade photograph:
I have in my possession one well-authenticated case of a saturn-like object, whose nature is known and clearly distinguishable in this particular instance. A plane, flying in a humid but apparently super-cooled atmosphere, became completely enveloped in fog, so about all one could see was a division where the stream lines were flowing up and down respectively over and under the wings. The cabin made a saturn-like spot in the center, and the wings closely resembled the appearance of the Brazilian photographs.
The Trindade object’s speed and sprightly maneuvers were explainable, Menzel claimed, as an illusion created by the reflection of sunlight on the plane.
But four years later, in The World of Flying Saucers
, Menzel publicly declared the case a hoax, charging that Barauna had faked the photographs via double exposure in collusion with an associate (Menzel and Boyd, 1963). He wrote, without mentioning newspaper articles and official reports to the contrary, that when reporters had a "chance to interview the officers and crewmen who allegedly had observed the Trindade saucer and could support Barauna’s story... [n]one of them had actually seen the object." In fact, in 1959 Hall had provided Menzel with a translation of a March 8, 1958, O Cruzeiro article which names several of the witnesses (Hall, 1959).
Menzel reprints a Brazilian Navy press release, but when the original and Menzel’s version are compared, some significant discrepancies become apparent. In the latter three words are added and six left out. The original reads: "Evidently, this Ministry cannot make any statement about the object sighted over the island of Trindade, for the photographs do not constitute enough evidence for such a purpose." Menzel renders it thus: "Clearly, this Ministry cannot make any statement about the reality of the object, for the photos do not constitute enough evidence for such a purpose." Whereas the first statement acknowledges an object and a sighting, the second implies that their reality is open to question — hardly the Brazilian Navy’s intention.
Menzel’s attack continues in his next book, The UFO Enigma
, wherein — though citing no source — he outlines the "extremely simple" method that he claimed was used to fake the photographs. "In the privacy of his home," Menzel writes, "the photographer had snapped a series of pictures of a model UFO against a black background. He then reloaded the camera with the same film and took pictures of the scenery in the ordinary fashion. When the film was developed, there was the saucer hanging in the sky." Menzel seems to have woven this story out of whole cloth. He also repeats the unfounded allegation that "no one else, except a friend (and presumed accomplice), had seen the disk flying overhead" (Menzel and Taves, 1977).
(
http://www.nicap.org/trindade/cufos_pages/Trindade_Clark_article.htm)
Powell continues:
”The US Naval Attaché’s report on the case, submitted to Project Blue Book (the US Air Force investigation into the UFO phenomenon) also concluded that the photographs were faked, and the Blue Book panel subsequently sided with this conclusion. ”
(
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mjpowell/Trindade/Trindade.htm
Interestingly, the USN preparing officer’s comments show precisely their attitude to the investigation of this case:
”It is the reporting officer’s private opinion that a flying saucer sighting would be unlikely at the very barren island of Trindade, as everyone knows Martians are extremely comfort loving creatures.”
(Hynek, J. A. (1978) The Hynek UFO Report, Sphere Books Ltd., London, (p. 250))
Yeah…like we are supposed to trust an investigation by
these people to be unbiased? I don’t think so!
Powell then claims the UFO was merely a misidentified aircraft (a “Twin Bonanza”). Yeah, right…
clearly the photos show that!
Powell also contends that the image in photo 1 has simply been “inverted” to produce the image in photo 2. However, this is comprehensively shown to be a false conception here: (
http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/inversio.htm).
Incidentally, the photos can be found here: (
http://www.nicap.org/reports/trinchart.htm) and a comprehensive analysis of the case here: (
http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/index.htm)
